So we have cuts everywhere, including having to pay more taxes according to another front page. Cutting armed forces, disability, bedroom tax and so on yet the Her Maj gets a £2 million pay rise. You couldn't make it up! From the article.... the 5% pay rise comes at a time when the Government is planning 11.5 billion in spending cuts.

@admin wrote:The Royals cost us 53p each per year....do you really begrudge that considering what they do for this country?

No, but it is grossly unfair that they should get a rise when many people are suffering cuts. They should be treated the same and tighten their belts, perhaps a few less frocks? I have nothing against the monarchy, but it really does them no favours this sort of rise, they should refuse it.

Old fashioned wood stove heats up wonderfully but cost of woods is something else I know. Having to buy the woods, get them delivered and stock them is dreadful enough. I used to hate that when I was living in France. Now I am paying through the nose for electricity bills on air conditioning - tropical side of the planet you see. Heating or cooling bills damage the pocket that is for sure.

candyfloss wrote:So we have cuts everywhere, including having to pay more taxes according to another front page. Cutting armed forces, disability, bedroom tax and so on yet the Her Maj gets a £2 million pay rise. You couldn't make it up! From the article.... the 5% pay rise comes at a time when the Government is planning 11.5 billion in spending cuts.

o/t

Just noticed the side news on Nigella Lawson.So it seems the marriage is about to make history, and all there's to savage from that marriage is just POTS and PANS. Oh dearie me!

Here is a very clear explanation about the civil list and the crown lands. You'll be surprised to find the Royal family is a bargain that the UK cannot do without.

If there was a President, all monies for him would have to come from the taxpayers, running to ten to twenty million a year - I'm guessing. A lot of hangers-on would get cushy jobs and so on, all paid for by the good people of Britain. The 40 million paid to the Queen is a fraction of the income from crown lands which is paid into the treasury. You may say that they should not own those lands. But then perhaps no-one should own land. Not even the National Trust. Nor the many celebrities and millionaires who buy up land for tax evasion.

Stick to your Royals, imo the Queen has turned out to be worth gold even if not all of her off-spring has. In short - Britain's got a bargain, make the most of it.

I begrudge any money from my taxes going to them. Not only has she had this rise, but the grandson and his wife are also having a flat in some castle or other renovated before the new baby arrrives at a cost of one million pounds to the taxpayer.

These are people who have millions and millions stashed away of their own money, who get things given to them for free every day of every year. Ridiculous, greedy and grabbing.

I also do not like the fact that ~The Duke can get first class treatment at a private hospital and be in and out of hospital within a couple of weeks whilst most OAPs are on waiting lists for up to 18 months in some cases.

I agree totally with Plebgate. Ok, I concur that the castles need to be upkept and I daresay the Monarchy security team need to be financed but I am angered by the constant luxury holidays, private jets and yachts, designer clothing and jewelry that my taxes pay for.

____________________This message is confidential and the information must not be used, disclosed, or copied to any other person who is not entitled to receive it. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender and then delete it.

They did try, Cherie Booth launched a ship up north early in her career as 'first lady'. Luckily I never heard of similar antics.

Seeing the country pile the Blairs have bought can you imagine what they'd have done with a presidency? The grace and favour apartments they'd give to hangers-on, relatives, so on and so forth. Either Blair would take the salute at Trooping the Colour, or they'd do away with it - the only country in the world who can stage such an event.

Tourism would drop and so would income from it, who wants to fly across the world to see yet another boring presidential puppet?

I have no access to Hansard, but I vividly recall Blair stating in the commons that he was happy that HIS people were able to demonstrate against the Iraq war. (I wonder if turning catholic helped him - confessing his sins and all's forgiven - how many hail Mary's was that worth? - btw I apologise to good catholics this is about the misuse of the religion).He and the shady men behind him, who'd put him on the throne in any case would make short work of ruining Britain further. The non-working underclass must have doubled under their leadership. Exactly what they wanted. Keeping his closet catholisism secret doesn't endear him to me either.

The man's a megalomaniac, something imo none of the royals can be said to be. The queen is amazing and it's partly through her that the Commonwealth has continued to exist. Prince Philip's always entertaining with his embarrassing remarks, Charles at least has the courage of his convictions in calling out the pharma industry for one thing. Princess Anne works very hard for Children's charities abroad, she doesn't have the charisma or the face for photo opportunities but she did and does more than Diana ever did on that score. I don't rate the rest of the family, but that's the case in all families surely? That paltry 40 million also pays for a lot of employees, upkeep of estates which would be crumbling and so on. I''ve heard they'd love to lose Buck House, nobody else wants it, badly built, cold and way too big. No other London Palace is big enough for receptions, so it's likely that President Blair/Prescott/Mandelson/Milliband would choose it as their main residence. Phew, sorry about the rant, but the world isn't really divided in the have and have-nots. That's far too simple a way to describe any economic system even as far back as the stone age.

Imo it's turning a large part of the population into badly educated, dependent drones that's costing far more than 40 million and has done more harm to the country and the people than another Blitzkrieg ever could. Mind you, dumbing down the population is not only happening in Britain but in many other European countries and you can't have a democracy without an educated population.

They did try, Cherie Booth launched a ship up north early in her career as 'first lady'. Luckily I never heard of similar antics.

Seeing the country pile the Blairs have bought can you imagine what they'd have done with a presidency? The grace and favour apartments they'd give to hangers-on, relatives, so on and so forth. Either Blair would take the salute at Trooping the Colour, or they'd do away with it - the only country in the world who can stage such an event.

Tourism would drop and so would income from it, who wants to fly across the world to see yet another boring presidential puppet?

I have no access to Hansard, but I vividly recall Blair stating in the commons that he was happy that HIS people were able to demonstrate against the Iraq war. (I wonder if turning catholic helped him - confessing his sins and all's forgiven - how many hail Mary's was that worth? - btw I apologise to good catholics this is about the misuse of the religion).He and the shady men behind him, who'd put him on the throne in any case would make short work of ruining Britain further. The non-working underclass must have doubled under their leadership. Exactly what they wanted. Keeping his closet catholisism secret doesn't endear him to me either.

The man's a megalomaniac, something imo none of the royals can be said to be. The queen is amazing and it's partly through her that the Commonwealth has continued to exist. Prince Philip's always entertaining with his embarrassing remarks, Charles at least has the courage of his convictions in calling out the pharma industry for one thing. Princess Anne works very hard for Children's charities abroad, she doesn't have the charisma or the face for photo opportunities but she did and does more than Diana ever did on that score. I don't rate the rest of the family, but that's the case in all families surely? That paltry 40 million also pays for a lot of employees, upkeep of estates which would be crumbling and so on. I''ve heard they'd love to lose Buck House, nobody else wants it, badly built, cold and way too big. No other London Palace is big enough for receptions, so it's likely that President Blair/Prescott/Mandelson/Milliband would choose it as their main residence. Phew, sorry about the rant, but the world isn't really divided in the have and have-nots. That's far too simple a way to describe any economic system even as far back as the stone age.

Imo it's turning a large part of the population into badly educated, dependent drones that's costing far more than 40 million and has done more harm to the country and the people than another Blitzkrieg ever could. Mind you, dumbing down the population is not only happening in Britain but in many other European countries and you can't have a democracy without an educated population.

Precisely, and this is their end goal. Tyranny, ruling the deliberately educationally dumbed-down subordinate underclasses.I attended a meeting at 'Whitehall' (UK government top office), where the then newly appointed labour minister for health, the brummy one, stupidly blurted out in his own educationally ignorant manner, the answer to the question 'but what about people's Freedom of Choice?' We can't all have freedom of choice, he responded, because that would be anarchy and no government can rule with anarchy.That was mid to late 1990s. That was when I saw the writing on the wall, and it is proving itself daily therefrom.That is why I am so 'pleased' (if that can be the right description) with the courage of whistle-blowers.These people are the only way, when political corruption is as entrenched as it is today, that the 'bigger agenda' can be defeated.As I say, anyone who has an agenda, that they wish to hide, must live in continual and dreaded fear of the day, the moment, the person, the published message, that exposes them for what they are. Then, depending upon the level of p*ssed-off-ed-ness that the proliteriat is suffering at that particular moment in time, the 'handling' of those 'purporting' a la Gerry their hidden agendas will be reflected in the proliteriat's reactions. Hitler, Ceausescu etc. The history is there for the reading. To what extent and extreme will people be pushed before they retaliate with sufficient force to rid themselves of the oppressor ? The purveyors of 'hidden agendas' need to watch over their shoulders, constantly.

A million to refurbish [ not build] one apartment at Kensington Palace is offensive in these times of austerity for many. This is for the family of 3 come July. William and Kate decided that they will pay for soft furnishings themselves. How wonderful of them after the publication of accounts showing that their far East trip cost a quarter of a million pounds. There was a trip by Princess Anne , a very short trip, costing over 40,000 pounds because she travelled with a few other people. The Royals are making money from the new baby fever......B Palace site is selling soldier uniform style babywear at £12 a pop while Prince Charles Highgrove website is offering baby shoes at £22 a pair. I hope the money is going to charity.

____________________

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.~John F. Kennedy

Imo these things should be seen in context. I believe the palaces aren't actually owned by the royals, I believe - correct me if I'm wrong - they belong to the state. Even if that isn't the case, call to mind the Lord Chancellor, close friend of Cherie Blair, who had his apartments renovated (they belong to the state too) at a cost of well over a million. Roy Strong, when visiting the completed make-over said he'd pay money NOT to live there, it was in such bad taste. The taxpayer coughed up for that as well.

So just looking at the royals - and it is a lot of money - just have a look what the non-royals get up to and compare. Look at everybody who has the opportunity to use tax-payers' money and I think it's likely that the royals don't look so bad next to the likes of Lord Chancellor Baron Irvine of Lang and his Pugin-inspired make-over.He and Booth cooked up the Yuman Rights Act for Britain which has resulted in any criminal immigrant being able to claim millions from the taxpayers to defend him in court and afterwards to keep him in the manner he'd like to be accustomed.

from Wiki: Irvine regularly faced controversy as Lord Chancellor. Soon after his appointment in 1998, the Lord Chancellor's official residence in the Palace of Westminster was redecorated at a cost to the taxpayer of £650,000. Hand-printed wallpaper alone accounted for £59,000.[2] Much of the criticism devolved on Irvine. Contractors working on the renovations were forced to sign the Official Secrets Act in order to avoid revelations of the expenditure leaking out to the public.[2] Early in 2003 he was awarded a pay rise of £22,691 as a result of a formula designed to keep his salary ahead of that of the Lord Chief Justice. After an outcry he accepted a more modest increase.

Old fashioned wood stove heats up wonderfully but cost of woods is something else I know. Having to buy the woods, get them delivered and stock them is dreadful enough. I used to hate that when I was living in France. Now I am paying through the nose for electricity bills on air conditioning - tropical side of the planet you see. Heating or cooling bills damage the pocket that is for sure.

Agree we used 3 deliveries of logs last winter at a cost of 160euros a delivery, and this just to heat the kitchen/dining area/lounge, all one huge room. We had 2 duvets on and 4 hot water bottles in our bed and two cats too, lol. So anyone who thinks that pensioners who retire to the sun are comfortable all year round are very mistaken.

@tigger wrote:Imo these things should be seen in context. I believe the palaces aren't actually owned by the royals, I believe - correct me if I'm wrong - they belong to the state. Even if that isn't the case, call to mind the Lord Chancellor, close friend of Cherie Blair, who had his apartments renovated (they belong to the state too) at a cost of well over a million. Roy Strong, when visiting the completed make-over said he'd pay money NOT to live there, it was in such bad taste. The taxpayer coughed up for that as well.

So just looking at the royals - and it is a lot of money - just have a look what the non-royals get up to and compare. Look at everybody who has the opportunity to use tax-payers' money and I think it's likely that the royals don't look so bad next to the likes of Lord Chancellor Baron Irvine of Lang and his Pugin-inspired make-over.He and Booth cooked up the Yuman Rights Act for Britain which has resulted in any criminal immigrant being able to claim millions from the taxpayers to defend him in court and afterwards to keep him in the manner he'd like to be accustomed.

from Wiki: Irvine regularly faced controversy as Lord Chancellor. Soon after his appointment in 1998, the Lord Chancellor's official residence in the Palace of Westminster was redecorated at a cost to the taxpayer of £650,000. Hand-printed wallpaper alone accounted for £59,000.[2] Much of the criticism devolved on Irvine. Contractors working on the renovations were forced to sign the Official Secrets Act in order to avoid revelations of the expenditure leaking out to the public.[2] Early in 2003 he was awarded a pay rise of £22,691 as a result of a formula designed to keep his salary ahead of that of the Lord Chief Justice. After an outcry he accepted a more modest increase.

Even though I am not a royalist, I much prefer them to a republic state.Imagine having shell president, their cronies and hangers on spending on taxpayers but dont ahve the same accountability and transparency as the Monarchy.I dare say the integrity of the Monarchy is beyond reproach and by comparison one cannot say the same about Politicians.

Besides all the stately homes, castles and palaces, are heritage of great historical values that need to be maintained be it lived in by the royals or Presidents or exhibit as museums.

At least the royals keep up centuries of tradition and custom of priceless intrinsic value that no modern day republic can ever hope to compare.The Monarchy is adept at doing things with pomp and style of entertainment value to the world helping to generate income just in broadcasting royalties and is a hugh tourist attraction, again generating profit.

Imagine a UK becoming like China without its emperors! Life would be much duller.

Eddie and Keela alerted to items and places concerned with the McCanns - and importantly to no other items or places.

According to Eddie and Keela, the body of Madeleine McCann lay lifeless behind the sofa in Apartment 5a, clinging to the only thing from which she could derive any comfort; a soft toy called 'Cuddle cat'.

Kate's book 'madeleine', Page 219: "Did they really believe that a dog could smell the 'odour of death' three months later from a body that had been so swiftly removed?"

After forensic analysis of the 'Last Photo' there is little doubt now that the pool photo CANNOT POSSIBLY have been taken on the Thursday 3rd May, but most likely on the Sunday 29th April. So, where was Madeleine at lunchtime on Thursday?

John McCann:"This was terrible for them, Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: "Maddy's jammies, where is Maddy?"Martin Roberts:"If Madeleine's pyjamas had not, in fact, been abducted then neither had Madeleine McCann."Dr Martin Roberts: A Nightwear Job

Death Toll in McCann Case

Gerry McCann called for an example to be made of 'trolls'. SKY reporter Martin Brunt doorstepped Brenda Leyland on 2 October 2014 after a 'Dossier' was handed in to Police by McCann supporters. She was then found dead in a Leicester hotel room the next day. Brenda paid the price.

Colin Shalke died suddenly in mysterious circumstances with a significant amount of morphine in his system. At the Inquest the coroner said there was no evidence as to how he had come to take morphine, and no needle mark was found.

Ex-Met DCI Andy Redwood had a "revelation moment" on BBC1's Crimewatch on 14th October 2013 when he announced that Operation Grange had eliminated the Tanner sighting - which opened up the 'window' of opportunity' from 3 mins to 45 mins, in accordance with their remit, to allow the staged abduction to happen.

Dr Gonçalo Amaral, retired PJ Coordinator: "The English can always present the conclusions to which they themselves arrived in 2007. Because they know, they have the evidence of what happened, they don't need to investigate anything. When MI5 opens their files, then we will know the truth."

Tracey Kandohla: "A McCann pal told The Sun Online: "Some of the savings have been siphoned off from the Find Maddie Fund into a fixed asset account, which financial experts have advised them to do. It can be used for purchases like buying a house or building equipment."

The McCanns, Operation Grange and the BBC are all working towards one goal - to make us keep looking at what happened (or didn't happen) on 3rd May, instead of looking at what happened days earlier. There is NO evidence of an abduction. Smithman is ALL they have got. Without that, they are sunk. No wonder Operation Grange clings on to Smithman...